"His temperament" means his lies have shut the doors into men's hearts and minds. It is a shame that no one ever Explained that a reputation as a pathological liar is not helpful to a President that has to go and ask for support from the Congress who are the Representatives of the people he has lied to. Fooling Pelosi's District and being told that he is a Victor only gives him a warped understanding of the USA.

She awakens lying on her bed with her loving Auntie Synova placing a cold compress on her forehead: "Wake up, honey." Her Aunt and Uncle are bent over her bed, watching her worriedly: "Ann, Ann dear, it's Aunt Synova, darling." Kindly Professor Meade passes by the window, relieved to see that she is OK following the tornado: "I just dropped by, because I heard the little girl got caught in the..." According to her Uncle, "she got quite a bump on the head. We kinda thought there for a minute she was gonna leave us." [Her brush with death was symbolized by the hourglass with the sand running out.]:

But I did leave you, Uncle Trooper. That's just the trouble. And I tried to get back for days and days.Ann insists her journey was real and not just a "bad dream."

Ugh. Remember last week when I said "bravo" for the first Althouse "character" commenter to have a complete story arc? Well I was mistaken. The producers of the "America's Politico" franchise didn't know when to quit, so now we're stuck with the commenter equivalent of "Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan". Enough already! It's getting as tiresome and threadbare as the "Titus: Revenge of the Turds" franchise.

Why give America's Politico such a hard time. He is only a cheerleader for the Democrats who only says the same things the NYT writes everyday. Attitude is everything, and AP has an attitude that could make Jimmy Carter happy reading Althouse.

"I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about "Barry." Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn't even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn't have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.

The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building"

Speaking of temperament - Was Bobby Jindal born in the U.S.? I'm not saying anything, I don't think. Why can't he just prove it I wonder? To me I mean. I have some questions. I think I may have remembered reading something about this on the internet. Me, I go back and forth, just wondering. Baton Rouge sounds pretty foreign to me.

So they want a Buddhist monk? (They showed the one they had there out the back door, IIRC.)

Someone who is serene and rational doesn't snap, lecture, hector and generally prickle the way BHO does.

rewards luck and happenstance more often than it does intellect and good intentions

So Ronald Reagan was lucky. (Well for sure, Bill Clinton was ;-) ) But there is that imputation of intellect and good intentions again. Getting old you guys. (Will someone tell them that the deification game is over?)

Frank ("If he has such a plan, few, if any, Americans have any idea what it is.”) Rich is gone.

BHO "But I do think this is a growth process and an evolution.”

Something you should have allowed yourself to experience before you had the audacity to hope you could get into this job, and actually DO it, Barack.

It's going to be a tiresome 2 years unless the mocking mockers can lighten it up for us.

If Obama had white skin, the "serene rationality" that all the bien-pensants gushed about would have been percieved as a simple lack of charisma. He would have been just another kinda smart but boring liberal white Senator, in the tradition of Paul Tsongas and Bill Bradley.

His black skin just made him seem more interesting than he really was for a while.

Some years ago my wife was friends with a Type-A yuppie woman with a son who was, at best, dull-normal. You should have heard her rationalizations to prove to herself and anyone else that the kid wasn't slow, he was special, with his own style of learning.

How many temper tantrums have we seen from O & his administration? How many times has he ill-advisedly insulted & lashed out at individuals, businesses, institutions, media organizations, political critics, enemies (oops I mean opponents) in an egregiously un-presidential manner, utterances which have only come back to bite him in the ass? I'll give him this-- which only makes things worse IMO: many of the worst remarks were not said off the cuff, in a spontaneous moment of anger & irritation, but were actually prepared, scripted, read off the teleprompter. What they reveal about his character, then, is not the flaw of a hair-trigger temper, uncontrolled passion of the moment, but something that runs much deeper. What appears to me more like a personality disorder.

The incessant invocation of Obama's brilliance, rationality, and preternaturally calm temperament-- against all evidence-- in every article about him has taken on the character of a discursive tic, something weirdly talismanic/ ritualistic (like saying Gesundheit after a sneeze), or something like a political/ journalistic ID tag, a password… a shibboleth. Something one is obligated to say, repeat, re-intone every time one writes about Obama in order to permit oneself (or be permitted) to criticize him.

The article by Walter Russell Mead linked by Instapundit today provides yet another example of this-- once again, there's that insistent, familiar, slightly too emphatic refrain on Obama's brilliance. It's as if one inoculates oneself thereby against any association with/ contamination by those "other" critics of Obama (the "other" stereotyped by the MSM)-- i.e. those racist, hateful, irrational, birther, "teabagger" types. You mark yourself as a "reasonable" critic. When you see this refrain-- shibboleth-- in otherwise sharp, gimlet-eyed critics (like Krauthammer, who only months ago would still refer, inexplicably, to Obama's sterling temperament), it's like a pre-emptive defense against the charge of racism, or a ticket one shows to maintain oneself in good credit with the MSM. To sing the usual little melody, yet again, about Obama's extraordinary brilliance & temperament, is like wearing a cross or festooning your article with garlic to ward off the race-baiting vampires.

It's also as if, the more all the wonderful things believed about Obama (from left right & center) have fallen apart, all discredited illusions now, the more necessary it becomes for many (especially in the MSM) to cling to this one unshakeable axiom-- something presented as so obvious that it presumably goes without saying, yet which they feel compelled for some reason to say again & again & again. Something that still justifies their past adulation & blind faith (which is now embarrassing to everyone). No matter what happens, no matter what Obama says or does, reacts to or decides on, nevertheless *in essence* he is, was, will always be extraordinarily brilliant, rational, and calm. And because this (so decreed by MSM consensus) constitutes his essence, it is invulnerable to the contingencies of actual behavior, actions, & events.

Finally-- speaking of personality disorders-- this constantly reiterated refrain/ shibboleth (on Obama's brilliance, rationality, temperament) reminds me of the way one learns to speak to & about people with personality disorders (e.g. narcissistic or borderline personalities). A way to walk on eggshells-- a way to communicate with a fragile ego (reassuring, assuaging, feeding, propping it up) in order to avoid its rejecting one & lashing back and/ or its falling apart. MSM criticism of Obama, even harsh criticism, usually comes slathered in a thick, dripping layer of obsequious flattery.

Here's an article from the New York Times laying out Obama's times at UC Law. Professor Epstein is quoted on his colleague:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html

Note the July 2008 date. Did the New York Times publish anything about Obama that wasn't hagiography before the election?

The piece also perpetuates the story that Obama was offered a professorship with tenure, but he turned it down. According to the University of Chicago, he was offered a tenure-track position -- big difference.

There is a study somewhere which shows that when people are jealous of someone (or obsessive) then they talk about her/him endlessly. Methinks that the GOP cannot stop thinking of our POTUS. They are real worried about how big of defeat their presidential team will get. Let me tell you your future. Your GOP ticket will be defeated across the nation. We will easily get over 55% of votes and 270+ electoral college votes.

If you really want to avoid the POTUS, here is a solution. Find another country.

The piece also perpetuates the story that Obama was offered a professorship with tenure, but he turned it down. According to the University of Chicago, he was offered a tenure-track position -- big difference.

The piece quotes the then-Dean of the UC Law School, Daniel Fischel, who stated to author Kantor he made that offer to Obama. These are people with names, whose faithfulness to the truth are important to both.

Now, on your side, you have an unsourced assertion attributed to the university as a whole.

These are people with names, whose faithfulness to the truth are important to both.

You mean people who know that there is no way to disprove what they are saying because there is NO PAPER TRAIL of such a thing ever happening?

Show me a letter offering such a thing. Offers of a tenure-track position aren't just dinner conversation. They're discussed in a group, and a formal letter is issued.

Where's the letter? All we have is a guy with a vested interest in pumping up Obama saying something which cannot be verified. Except to the extent that no such letter has ever been produced: which would tend to argue AGAINST his statement rather than FOR it.

As far as unnamed sources being unreliable, you seem to have no problem believing them when they have something negative to say about Republicans - especially Sarah Palin, so why the sudden reluctance to believe them now?

Could it be that your situational principles find themselves in a different situation? I'd say you're being hypocritical, but that would require some degree of genuineness in your original argument.

And Deep Throat would like to talk to you about whether you should believe a named source (Nixon) or an unnamed source. He seems to have a different take on the matter than you do - at least, a different take than the one you're disingenuously offering TODAY.

garage mahal wrote: Speaking of temperament - Was Bobby Jindal born in the U.S.?

Irrelevant. However, should the question ever become relevant I'll wager Bobby Jindal will not hire a cadre of attorneys tasked to harass and impede independent research into his background, nor will he have his academic and bar association records redacted. Wanna bet?

"... his serene rationality has felt to many like detachment, even indifference."

It's not alleged "serene rationality" that feels like indifference ... it's all the vacations and golfing and other forms of fucking off.

It's pretty clear the Obamas want to be called President, but Barack doesn't actually have the intellectual curiosity or work ethic to BE the President.

He wants Air Force One and a posse full of black Cadillac Escalades and armed Secret Service because it makes him the baddest muthafucka at the barbershop.

It's cool.

Spending time thinking about how your policies destroy the impetus for small business to create jobs in America isn't nearly as glamorous as inviting the Beatles over to your free house and having a party with your posse.

We need to foreclose on Barack Obama and take his house and car from him.

The piece quotes the then-Dean of the UC Law School, Daniel Fischel, who stated to author Kantor he made that offer to Obama. These are people with names, whose faithfulness to the truth are important to both.

Do you honestly believe that a law school at Chicago's level would offer tenure to anyone with no publications, little if any teaching experience, and not holding tenure elsewhere?

The story that Obama was offered tenure at that law school with no qualifications except for the color of his skin and his Harvard diploma is one of those stories that is much too good to be true. It reminds me a bit about all the accomplishments that are attributed to Kim Jong Il. For example, did you know that Kim shot a 38 under par, complete with 11 holes-in-one, his first time golfing?

A couple of other things to keep in mind. First, I was under the impression that the faculty would have had to vote for the tenure, and they were never asked to. And, very likely would have voted against it, since he brought nothing to the faculty. (Ann probably knows more about this than anyone else here, being a real law professor). Secondly, there is some evidence that Obama was originally rejected, but that decision was overruled, essentially by the Chicago machine.

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.--For all media inquiries, please contact Sarah Galer at sgaler@uchicago.edu or 773 702 8365.

I found that by using an esoteric, little-known software utility called "Google." You might try it some time.

The piece quotes the then-Dean of the UC Law School, Daniel Fischel, who stated to author Kantor he made that offer to Obama. These are people with names, whose faithfulness to the truth are important to both.

With all due respect ... bullshit. Where in the NYT piece is Fischel directly quoted as saying that the offer was for immediate tenure?

Soon after, the faculty saw an opening and made him its best offer yet: Tenure upon hiring. A handsome salary, more than the $60,000 he was making in the State Senate or the $60,000 he earned teaching part time. A job for Michelle Obama directing the legal clinic.

Your political career is dead, Daniel Fischel, then the dean, said he told Mr. Obama, gently. Mr. Obama turned the offer down. Two years later, he decided to run for the Senate. He canceled his course load and has not taught since.

Believe whatever you want, Former. Perhaps you believe that a reporter never, ever, ever gets any information wrong in an article. (And they have all those layers of fact checkers, too. Just asak Jayson Blair.)

Former, do you understand the difference between being offered a professorship with immediate tenure and being offered a tenure-track position?

Do you comprehend how bloody implausible it is that anyone with no publications would be offered immediate tenure? Do you realize that the Dean of the Law School would not offer such a position without notifying or consulting with anyone else on the faculty or in the administration?

Faculty members of the University of Chicago Law School thought it was implausible, as Jim Lindgren of the Volokh Conspiracy discovered shortly after the NYT piece appeared:

http://volokh.com/posts/1217470913.shtml

Jim Lindgren, July 30, 2008 at 10:21pm

The University of Chicago Law Faculty Never Voted a Tenure Offer to Barack Obama.--

[UPDATE, 3:40pm Thursday:

I have now spoken or corresponded with 7 members of the University of Chicago law faculty, including several of the most powerful members of the faculty in the 1998-2003 period. For each year in that period, I believe that I have spoken to at least one from the following group of people who would know if Barack Obama had been vetted for an appointment with immediate tenure: appointments chair, appointments committee member, or dean. I have been purposely inclusive in this list to avoid identifying my sources.

None of the 7 Chicago law faculty I interviewed or corresponded with were consulted about an Obama tenured offer, none of them remember any discussion of hiring Obama with immediate tenure, and some of them couldn’t believe that anyone would even attempt such a move, since it would have been a “nonstarter.” If Obama had been vetted by the faculty before he was approached about an offer with immediate tenure, every member of the apppointments committee that year would be likely to remember it. I suspect that the group least likely to believe the story that the Chicago faculty was consulted and favored a tenured offer to Barack Obama is the University of Chicago Law School faculty.

I should say that two very prominent members of the faculty emailed me to express their doubt that a tenured offer had ever been vetted with the faculty. Both are campaign donors to Obama. My own supposition is that they supported my reporting because they did not want the academic public to get the wrong idea about Chicago’s tenure standards. One prominent faculty member wrote me that he had not been consulted by Dan Fischel about a tenured offer for Obama, “nor does [Dan] recall the whole thing with any certainty.”

Dan was a law school classmate of mine and a great dean at Chicago, and he is one of the most brilliant and influential law and economics scholars ever. I think his memory just failed him this time (as it sometimes does for many of us).

Many non-academic readers of this blog may not have understood why this was such an implausible story in the first place. In any event, now I’ve talked to enough Chicago faculty that this story can be safely put to bed.]

garage mahal said... "Speaking of temperament - Was Bobby Jindal born in the U.S.? I'm not saying anything, I don't think. Why can't he just prove it I wonder? To me I mean. I have some questions. I think I may have remembered reading something about this on the internet. Me, I go back and forth, just wondering. Baton Rouge sounds pretty foreign to me."

Bobby Jindal is not a natural born Citizen either. His parents were not citizens when He was born in Louisiana. PLACE of birth is just one part of the equation. A natural born citizen is born in America of 2 US Citizen parents. Alexander Hamilton even proposed that A2S1 say "born a citizen", but that was rejected in favor of "natural born Citizen", for security reasons.

BOTH sides of congress are committing treason by allowing Obama to occupy the office of POTUS. If Jindal wasa REAL patriot he would release a statement saying that he is not eligible, and why. But alas, he's just another dirtbag politician.

Quaestor said... "garage mahal wrote: Speaking of temperament - Was Bobby Jindal born in the U.S.?

Irrelevant. However, should the question ever become relevant I'll wager Bobby Jindal will not hire a cadre of attorneys tasked to harass and impede independent research into his background, nor will he have his academic and bar association records redacted. Wanna bet?"

You're right! Jindal's place of birth is Irrelevant! His parents were not citizens, so he could be born in the White house and he would still not be a natural born Citizen.

Nobody, dude -- no single body -- is talking about this issue except you and perhaps a few other insane individuals. What makes you think respectable people are going to talk about your pet issue that no one cares about? What gives you the right to impose your pet issues on them?

So afraid of the "birther" invective

No one is afraid of birthers, dude. People are laughing at you because you and your fellow birthers are idiots.

that she allows an unconstitutional Usurper to occupy the office of POTUS

Why is Althouse to blame for any alleged "constitutional usurpations"? What, pray tell, ought she do to stop it? Should she go to your blog and leave a series of bizarre comments?

Get help, dude. Seriously. I am worried about you and the people around you.

How can a law prof that knows about the law and the constitution, not know what a natural born Citizen is, and not be alarmed by Obama's Usurpation?

Seven Machos said,"Nobody, dude -- no single body -- is talking about this issue except you and perhaps a few other insane individuals. What makes you think respectable people are going to talk about your pet issue that no one cares about? What gives you the right to impose your pet issues on them?"

Millions of people are questioning Obama's eligibility. No single body? I love when people make blanket statements like that, it shows their lack of reason. Who says you're respectable? Who are you to tell me I can't speak?

No one is afraid of birthers, dude. People are laughing at you because you and your fellow birthers are idiots."

It's not that she's afraid of the 'birthers", she's afraid of being labled a "birther". Duh!

7 said,

that she allows an unconstitutional Usurper to occupy the office of POTUS

"Why is Althouse to blame for any alleged "constitutional usurpations"? What, pray tell, ought she do to stop it? Should she go to your blog and leave a series of bizarre comments?

Get help, dude. Seriously. I am worried about you and the people around you."

Imagine if Althouse, the #1 Law Blog, did the job that the media won't do, and raise the question of Obama's eligibility. What's missing is knowledge. The FACT of Obama's noneligibility is being buried by lack of education and knowledge, and AA is participating in that. I think that she knows very well that Obama is ineligible, especially since she posted about Federalist #68, whereAlexander Hamilton explains the reason for the security requirement. I have proven on this and other boards with no credible rebuttal that Obama is ineligible. You, and a lot of others have tried and failed to prove otherwise.

That AA says nothing is unconscionable. Is this the "knew media" or is it the propagandist NYT?

Again, where does it say that anchor babies would be eligible to be President? Not a citizen, or a "born citizen", or a "citizen at birth", but a natural born Citizen, eligible to be President. I'm waiting, you still, after all this time, cannot tell me, and neither can anyone else here.

It's not "serene rationality" when, say, the President's first public statement after the Fort Hood shootings was a grinning "shout-out" to some crony in the audience. That's not serenity, it's pathological detachment.

As for his supposed great intelligence of our POTUS, I think the automatic invocation of his brilliance is basically an incantation: a spell warding off the racism curse. Mutter it like abracadabra, while waving your hands: "He's so BRILLIANT, of course . . . " and then you may be permitted to utter a "but .. . " without a swarm of demons chittering "Racist, racist, racist!" while they pluck out your heart.

master cylinder said... "Mick, it's so weird how Obama has fooled everyone but you! MMmmmWhaaaaaaa! You must be a special super secret double background agent."

So Where does it say (SCOTUS or statute), that anyone born in America, even anchor babies, are natural born citizens, eligible to be POTUS? No one here can prove me wrong over the last year. No one? I thought maybe there were some sharp lawyers here! But from my experience lawyers don't know s#@t about the Constitution.

I awake this Am to find an excellent analysis by YASHU (someone I've never run across in all my years of blogging unless my memory faults me, which is strange, as his comments indicate he is the sort who has a lot to say) which provides,IMHO, the most complete, concise, all-in-one-place, synopsis of the dysfunctional civic malady that seems to affect all who seek to analyze/comment upon Obama's performance in office--thus preventing the proper needed depth of analysis. YASHU has really covered the proverbial waterfront.

Do you honestly believe that a law school at Chicago's level would offer tenure to anyone...

Do you honestly believe that a retired law school dean would lie? Are lawprofs notoriously mendacious by nature?

Believe whatever you want, Former. Perhaps you believe that a reporter never, ever, ever gets any information wrong in an article.

Believe whatever you want. Perhaps you believe that

1. Interviewees never read finished articles they were interviewed for.2. Chicagoans loyally avoid reading the New York Times.3. Not even spotting an egregious error would cause a law school dean -- sloppy and uncaring as that tribe is known to be -- would make Fischel protest to the NYT.4. Despite the daily list of corrections on Page A-2. the NYT avoids running corrections as much as it can, because accuracy is a matter of unconcern.

So what was the weak link in the chain that allowed an untruth to persist in the pages of the NYT for two years?

There actually is something distinct about the specific way the constitution states the qualifications for president.

Seriously.

And no, I am not a "birther."

But a close reading (as in *read what it says*) makes one go, mmmm.... .. . wonder what *that* means ...... .. . . .

In the context of a new nation, there must have been a reason to write it that way.

While mick is often tiresome (do you have anything else to say?) it would be good, (after Obama retires, of course) to really clarify it. It may be something most everyone has had incorrect assumptions about, because we are thinking "progressively" (as in liberal inclusive progressives).

The reason I say after Obama retires is, mick, there is a snowball's chance in hell anyone has the time or inclination or reason to look at it now.

So: Reality Check here.

Two of our kids were born in a foreign country. They were registered with the US embassy after birth. They even got American passports as babes.

The country of residence allows one to choose - at age 18 I would guess - if they wanted that citizenship. None of this anchor baby crap for them, and we were there legally.

"Two of our kids were born in a foreign country. They were registered with the US embassy after birth. They even got American passports as babes.

The country of residence allows one to choose - at age 18 I would guess - if they wanted that citizenship. None of this anchor baby crap for them, and we were there legally.

So y'all know where I stand on that idiocy."

Exactly, and it's not about you, it's about the Constitution. Your children's birth in a foreign country, and the resulting dual citizenship at birth (which is resolved by place of residence and age of majority) excludes them from being natural born Citizens. So just because your children don't fit the eligibility clause is why you would change the security clause of A2S1? Pretty selfish, but par for the course for a "progressive". Obama must be unseated NOW. His putative Presidency could set a precedent (which is what he is trying to do)that would diminish our national security. Obama is the very example of why the framers demanded a natural born Citizen to be POTUS. He must be unseated, and all legislation signed by him, including SCOTUS appointments be declared Null and Void.

Democrats always brag about how much smarter than Republicans. For the most part it is the self congratulations of the smartest guys in the room. It goes back to the Eisenhower-Stevenson elections of 1952 and 1956 where smug Democrats assured themselves about how much smarter Stevenson [mediocre Ivy League student, and undistinguished Chicago machine controlled governor] then Ike [who ran the coalition that won what remains the most complex operation in the history of warfare]. It carried on through the past three elections where objectively George Bush had more brain power then Gore or Kerry (you can check Michael Isakoff for the former and Kerry’s eventually released academic and military test records for the latter. ) My guess is that Sarah Palin has 10IQ points on Obama .

No you are the idiot. Jindel's parents were legal residents of the United States. He is not an anchor baby. The resolution conerning McCain was to attest that since he was born overseas to while his father was assigned to Panama for military duty to the United States he is a native born citizen.

"No you are the idiot. Jindel's parents were legal residents of the United States. He is not an anchor baby. The resolution conerning McCain was to attest that since he was born overseas to while his father was assigned to Panama for military duty to the United States he is a native born citizen."

Since they were legal residents, he is a "Citizen" not a natural born Citizen, eligible to be President (he was born w/ dual allegiance). The correct term is "natural born" (SEE A2S1), "native born" means born here, not neccessarily natural born (born here of 2 US Citizen parents), and eligible to be POTUS.US law certainly does not say US military bases are US property, PCZ was leased from Panama, and they forgot to note that the Naturalization Act of 1790 was rescinded by the NA 1795, which dropped the words "natural born". So the whole resolution, which holds no force in law, is flawed. McCain was not "natural born" either, but they used Res. 511 to hide Obama behind, he even sponsored the bill! The Traitors in Congress gave us 2 ineligible candidates. Jindal may be next. But he will be opposed, as plenty of people know he is not eligible.

I'll just say this, I don't for a second claim to know what goes on in Obama's head, but as someone who is married to someone with a similar temperament, I know that it is often misunderstood. Not everyone wears their heart on their sleeve and it can be very disconcerting and uncomfortable to those used to looking for emotional ques. I've seen it many times, folks freaking out and accusing him of all sorts of nefarious thoughts when he keeps his cards close to his vest.

Seems to me, in times like this, this kind of temperament should be an asset, but then reality slaps me upside the head, reminding me that we require to act and to pose a certain way, or else we’re not comfortable.

Do I think Dean Fischel "lied"? No, I don't. But I think it's quite clear that his more recent statement about something that he claims happened several years previously is not accurate. Perhaps (as Lindgren suggests) he was honestly mistaken in his recollection, perhaps he misstated the nature of a personal question ("Hey, Barry, would you take a tenured position if I could get the faculty to buy in?") as an actual "offer" from the Law School, or perhaps he initially misspoke and did not want to retract his statement. Or what the hell, maybe he did lie -- I don't know the man and I'm not accusing him, but I can't absolutely rule out the possibility at this point. Do you?

The evidence -- one man's word, and nothing more -- for the existence of this offer is far less extensive than the supposed evidence for alien abductions, leprechauns, or the healing power of crystals. But most of us don't find ourselves compelled to believe in the existence of these things, either. Believe whatever you want to believe, Former.

It is odd that your argument boils down to "How dare you say this good man lied!" And yet I seem to recall you (and quite a few other lefties) claiming that "Bush lied!" when the rest of us find it far more plausibe that he was simply mistaken. Oh well, different standards for different objectives, I guess.

You are still an idiot. There is a difference between being an anchor baby, a child born in the US to illegal aliens and being born in the US to parents of legally admitted aliens, i.e.,green card holders. The child born to the latter are considered natural born under the constitutiion. If that were not so then you would have trace your roots back to 1783 to be eligible.

I will not bother to argue the McCain case because you are obviously incapable of understanding what natural born means.

Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.

That quote manifestly does not suggest or demonstrate that someone born in the United States as an American citizen is not eligible to be president."

Really what does it suggest? It specifically says that requirement for natural born Citizen is American parents. Which SCOTUS case says "Born a Citizen" equals "natural born Citizen"? You can't prove me wrong, so I go nowhere. Were your parents US citizens when you were born?

jerryofva said... "Yes Mick you are correct natural born not native born.

You are still an idiot. There is a difference between being an anchor baby, a child born in the US to illegal aliens and being born in the US to parents of legally admitted aliens, i.e.,green card holders. The child born to the latter are considered natural born under the constitutiion. If that were not so then you would have trace your roots back to 1783 to be eligible.

I will not bother to argue the McCain case because you are obviously incapable of understanding what natural born means."

Oh so you admit that you are wrong, but I'm still wrong. What people claim is that if you are "born a citizen" then you are a natural born Citizen, so if anchor babies are considered citizens (they shouldn't be), then they are natural born and eligible to be POTUS by that logic. Jindal was born w/ dual allegiance, and as such is not natural born, no matter if born of legal residents, they were still Indian citizens. You really don't understand the concept. You only have to trace your ancestry to your parents, not 1783. You need to study up if you want to argue w/ me about this.And No McCain is not a natural born Citizen, he blew ALL of his "American Hero" Cred.

My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.

Ass clown -- Where in this statement do you find evidence for the proposition that a requirement for natural born Citizen is American parents? There is nothing there about any requirements. Nothing there suggests that there are not other options.

Jindal for President 2012! Jindal v. Obama. Just to make the birthers go crazy.

Seven Machos said... "There is a difference between being an anchor baby, a child born in the US to illegal aliens and being born in the US to parents of legally admitted aliens

Really? Under what Clause of the Constitution? Certainly not the Equal Protection Clause..."

"Equal Protection" has no bearing on who is a natural born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS (although it is probably one of the most progressively abused clauses). Natural born is an eligibility requirement, like 35 years old. So I guess you're saying 34 year olds "equal protection" rights are being violated? Incidently, were you an anchor baby?

Citizens naturalized citizens and natural born Citizens have the same rights, but only natural born Citizens (born in the US of US Citizen parents) are eligible to be POTUS.

... received her J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 1988, where she achieved membership in the Order of the Coif and was an editor of the Michigan Law Review.[6] At Michigan, Coulter was president of the local chapter of the Federalist Society and was trained at the National Journalism Center.[7]After law school, Coulter served as a law clerk, in Kansas City, for Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[8] After a short time working in New York City in private practice, where she specialized in corporate law, Coulter left to work for the United States Senate Judiciary Committee after the Republican Party took control of Congress in 1994. She handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan and helped craft legislation designed to expedite the deportation of aliens convicted of felonies.[9] She later became a litigator with the Center for Individual Rights.[10]

Seven Machos said... "My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.

Ass clown -- Where in this statement do you find evidence for the proposition that a requirement for natural born Citizen is American parents? There is nothing there about any requirements. Nothing there suggests that there are not other options.

Jindal for President 2012! Jindal v. Obama. Just to make the birthers go crazy."

Oh now there are "other" options? He gave one requirement (he's wrong, there are 2, the child must be born on US soil, but he conveniently left it off because McCain was born in Panama). Again WHICH SCOTUS case or Statute says that a "born citizen" is a natural born Citizen? Prove it.

Which SCOTUS case or statute says that a "born citizen" is a Natural Born Citizen?

No case, you drooling moron because, as I told you above, the issue has not been litigated. But other issues regarding alienage have, and they invariably invoke the Equal Protection Clause, which you need to learn and understand.

As for other options, there are many ways to be born a U.S. citizen. One of them is to be born in the United States. Another is to be born of a single American parent. Obama did both those things.

If the issue is dual allegence then in what way does McCain have dual allegence to Panama? His parents, both American citizens were assigned by the United States Navy to serve in Panama at the time of his birth. You might have argument if the McCains worked for General Motors instead of the United States Government.

The Constitution does not differentiate between someone whose ancestors were born in 1783 and someone who was born to parents who are legal residents of the United States. If they are here legally then their children are natural born. End of story.

There are seven Presidents with one or more foreign born parents. Both of Andrew Jackson's parents were born in Ireland which made them British Subjects. It takes an act of Parliament to revoke that status. No such act was passed so I guess Old Hickory held the office illegally.

Jim, while I appreciate Jim Lindgren's indefatigible skepticism (he and Clayton Cramer brought down the Bellesiles BS that few Americans owned firearms at the time of the Revolution) as I read Fischel's reported statement he at least felt sure the faculty would approve tenure without the two publications.

Obama's a smart dude who taught his courses at a level of professional competence. Perhaps Fischel thought Obama could easily knock out his two articles on the job, once he abandoned politics.

If the issue is dual allegence then in what way does McCain have dual allegence to Panama? His parents, both American citizens were assigned by the United States Navy to serve in Panama at the time of his birth. You might have argument if the McCains worked for General Motors instead of the United States Government.

The Constitution does not differentiate between someone whose ancestors were born in 1783 and someone who was born to parents who are legal residents of the United States. If they are here legally then their children are natural born. End of story.

There are seven Presidents with one or more foreign born parents. Both of Andrew Jackson's parents were born in Ireland which made them British Subjects. It takes an act of Parliament to revoke that status. No such act was passed so I guess Old Hickory held the office illegally."

At the time McCain was born Panama gave "birthright citizenship", so until the age of 18 he was a dual citizen, with the opportunity to claim Panamanian citizenship. Again you fail to understand. You need not trace your ancestry back to the 1780s. If your parents are naturalized citizens, and you are born in the US, then you are a natural born Citizen. The issue is not WHERE A. Jackson's parents were born, just whether they were naturalized when A. Jackson was born. It's really not that hard to understand. It is a security eligibilty requirement designed to ensure to the highest degree, allegiance and attachment to country. Natural born Citizens are the largest portion of the citizenry, and children of naturalized citizens are eligible, so there is nothing nativist or racist about it. See Federalist #68.

murgatroyd666 said... "Mick, it's clear that your arguments, however persuasive they may seem to you, are not gaining any traction here.

There's an individual who posts at a site called 24ahead.com. He cares deeply about immigration and citizenship issues. I'm sure he would welcome your remarkable insights there."

No, my arguments are dead on correct. The truth sets me free, and I'm sure there are plenty of people that lurk and learn. Many of those disagreeing (such as "7") probably have a vested interest relating to the basis of their own citizenship, and feel somehow offended that they may not be eligible to be POTUS.By the way WHICH SCOTUS case or Statute says that "born citizens" are Natural Born Citizens? No one here can say.

Prove it! I've proven that only those born in the US of US Citizen parents are natural born Citizens, eligible to be POTUS, many times over. NO ONE here can prove me wrong, after all this time. I sure hope you are all not lawyers.

I've proven that only those born in the US of US Citizen parents are natural born Citizens, eligible to be POTUS

No. You haven't. Furthermore, this issue has never been litigated by the Supreme Court, nor has it been addressed directly by Congress. Also, Obama is president.

NO ONE here can prove me wrong, after all this time. I sure hope you are all not lawyers.

EVERYONE here thinks you are a raving fucking loon. I am a lawyer. I deal with the Equal Protection Clause quite often. I was also a consul, which is a person who actually needs to know immigration law and apply it.

I've proven that only those born in the US of US Citizen parents are natural born Citizens, eligible to be POTUS

No. You haven't. Furthermore, this issue has never been litigated by the Supreme Court, nor has it been addressed directly by Congress. Also, Obama is president.

NO ONE here can prove me wrong, after all this time. I sure hope you are all not lawyers.

EVERYONE here thinks you are a raving fucking loon. I am a lawyer. I deal with the Equal Protection Clause quite often. I was also a consul, which is a person who actually needs to know immigration law and apply it."

11/8/10 12:08 PM

The on point case about POTUS natural born Citizenship has not occured, but why would you not want the case to be heard? There is obviously enough "confusion" that requires a definitive ruling. Here is a case at the SCOTUS right now. This would be the first on point natural born citizen/ POTUS case.

There is plenty written about what a natural born Citizen is, in the dicta of: The VenusDred ScottMinor v. HappersettWong Kim ArkPerkins v. Elg

All of these cases dicussed the basis of Citizenship, and discribed natural born Citizens exactly as Vattel, even citing him by name. Natural Law is the basis of our US Common Law, so says the Declaration of Independence and the USC A1S8C10 (law of nations). Vattel's "Law of Nations" is the most cited book of law throughout the 19th century, and was even cited recently by Scalia in the Heller v. D.C. case (natural right of protection).You can look at Federalist #68 (chief magistrate as "creature of our own".)Precedent: only one POTUS beside those grandfathered in by A2S1C5, was not a Natural Law natural born Citizen. Chester Arthur committed fraud, and the public was not aware that C. Arthur's father was not a citizen until C. Arthur was 13 (recently discovered). All others were Natural Law natural born Citizens.Fraud is not precedent.

You could look at John Bingham's definition in the Congressioal Globe during the 14 Amendment hearings (exactly like Vattel).He wrote the Amendment.

You could look at Olsen and Tribe's definition during Resolution 511 hearings (oops, congress has talked about it recently, and more than once). which was:

"natural born Citizens are those born WITHIN the Territory AND ALLEGIANCE of a nation."------Laurence Tribe

Chertoff and Leahy even said that natural born Citizens are born to "American parentssssssss"

So I give all this documentation and all you can say is that "the law doesn't say what I think it says"? You don't present one shread of proof? Right!!! I believe you. You must not be a very good lawyer, and probably, thank gosh, not eligible to be POTUS.

The piece also perpetuates the story that Obama was offered a professorship with tenure, but he turned it down.

even you do not believe that the University of Chicago Law School faculty extended an offer of immediate tenure to Obama, which is what was claimed in the NYT piece.

The faculty's not in a position to offer anyone anything.

The Wall Street Journal's law blog covered the controversy at the time:

Then, in response to reader questions, Kantor herself — the author of the NYT article — clarified the tenure issue, writing on the NYT’s Caucus blog:

Several readers have asked questions about Mr. Obama’s status at the school. Let me clarify . . .When the law school tried to hire Mr. Obama after his failed 2000 congressional race, it was for a tenured job, according to Daniel Fischel, the dean at the time. In our interview, I asked him if he meant “tenure-track,” and he said no. “He would be hired as a tenured professor,” he explained. The faculty would vote, but Mr. Obama already had their support, he added.

In Fischel's mind, faculty approval of hiring Obama with immediate tenure was a foregone conclusion. Obama was the pony, Fischel was Santa, and the faculty was eagerly awaiting Christmas Day.

Because I don't like the Supreme Court legislating, but that's a different question.

Obama is president, dude. You have no standing to address a court to change that fact. Furthermore, nobody cares. You are a loon."

The SCOTUS has the sole authority to define Constitutional terms. You're happy that the courts have denied standing thus far to We the people to determine Obama's eligibility? What kind of "conservative" could you be? And of course you provide no Proof of your position that "Born Citizen" equals natural born Citizen. No proof means you are lying. This case is at the SCOTUS as we speak.

First of all, there is no way that cert. will be granted in that lunatic case. Now...

The SCOTUS has the sole authority to define Constitutional terms.

This is manifestly untrue. See, dude, this is where you show your ridiculous ignorance. What you are relying on here, even though you don't know it or understand it, is a case called Marbury v. Madison, which liberal courts have used in their judicial overreach for years. The three branches of the federal government are equal, and may equally discern the Constitution.

You're happy that the courts have denied standing thus far to We the people to determine Obama's eligibility?

You loons are denied standing because you cannot possibly have standing. You are not affected in any way because of Obama's citizenship. There are any number of people or entities who could sue. You are not one of them. Sorry.

No proof means you are lying.

Please show me where I have lied when I have said (1) that you don't have standing, (2) that Obama is president, or (3) that all Americans who were born as Americans are equally Americans. You cannot.

Why does anyone think that a guy who had been a community organizer, a state legislator, and a fairly recent Harvard grad would be granted automatic tenure at Chicago?

Maybe because Obama was a rock star? Remember a little ConLaw professor I like to call Larry Tribe?

From the Harvard Crimson:

“There are those in whom challenge stirs greatness, those who rise to challenge rather than letting it break their stride or spin their compass,” said Tribe about Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, whom he called “the most impressive and talented of the thousands of students I have been privileged to teach in nearly 40 years on the Harvard faculty.”

(For a little perspective, among Tribe’s other former students is Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts ’76.)

That's right John McCain, son of Admiral John S. McCain Jr., Grandson of Admiral John S. McCain Sr. had dual allegence to Panama. You sir are an ignoramus.

The Founding Fathers never intended to penalize the children of parents stationed out of the country in the service of their country. When the Constition was written no nation gave birthright citizenship to foreigners who were not born to permanent residents of that country. And only the United States gave birthright citizenship to children of legal residents whether their were citizens or not. Natural born means what it says. Born in the United States of either citizens or legal residents.

Seven Machos said... "First of all, there is no way that cert. will be granted in that lunatic case. Now...

The SCOTUS has the sole authority to define Constitutional terms.

This is manifestly untrue. See, dude, this is where you show your ridiculous ignorance. What you are relying on here, even though you don't know it or understand it, is a case called Marbury v. Madison, which liberal courts have used in their judicial overreach for years. The three branches of the federal government are equal, and may equally discern the Constitution.

You're happy that the courts have denied standing thus far to We the people to determine Obama's eligibility?

You loons are denied standing because you cannot possibly have standing. You are not affected in any way because of Obama's citizenship. There are any number of people or entities who could sue. You are not one of them. Sorry.

No proof means you are lying.

Please show me where I have lied when I have said (1) that you don't have standing, (2) that Obama is president, or (3) that all Americans who were born as Americans are equally Americans. You cannot."

Now you are really lying. The SCOTUS is the sole court created by the USC (it said lesser courts will be created). As such it is the only arbitter of Constitional terms. Why do you think that Congressional Resolutions have no force in law (like Res. 511). The SCOTUS will decide what natural born Citizen means, and the Congress and President will have to follow. You are certainly no Conservative if you think we the people have no standing to make sure that our security clause (A2S1S4,5) is not violated. And you bash the judiciary, yet say it's OK for it invent "standing" issues that have stood in the way of solving a definite Constitutional crisis. And of course, you mistate the question, which is, If Born Citizens are natural born Citizens, where is the proof? Again you can give no proof of your cocksure definition. So again you are lying.

"That's right John McCain, son of Admiral John S. McCain Jr., Grandson of Admiral John S. McCain Sr. had dual allegence to Panama. You sir are an ignoramus.

The Founding Fathers never intended to penalize the children of parents stationed out of the country in the service of their country. When the Constition was written no nation gave birthright citizenship to foreigners who were not born to permanent residents of that country. And only the United States gave birthright citizenship to children of legal residents whether their were citizens or not. Natural born means what it says. Born in the United States of either citizens or legal residents."

So you just said NBC means "born in the US to either citizens or legal residents."Where does it say that the children of legal residents is a NBC? Wong Kim Ark? NOPE, that says that the children of Resident, domiciled aliens is a citizen, not a natural born Citizen.

But anyway, by your definition Obama is NOT ELIGIBLE. His father was neither a US Citizen or legal resident. Obama Sr. was here on a studnet Visa.

And by you definition McCain is INELIGIBLE because he was born in Panama. If he would have been born between the passage of the Naturalization Act of 1790 and NA 1795, THEN he would have been a natural born Citizen. But alas, he was born in 1936 I believe. He was a little late. He more than anyone is responsible for this Constitutional disaster.

Arguing with a truther/birther is futile exercise but since i worked the weekend I have nothing better to do today.

look Mick, The founding Fathers lived in an era where they could not conceive that child born outside of the country to parents in service to the US Government would be anything but natural born. That takes care of McCain.

There are only two types of US citizens, natural born and naturalized. There is no third category. Did Bobby Jindel have to go through a naturalization procedure? If not he is natural born. In order to be natural born only one parent has to be a US citizen or resident alien not both. So if Obama was born in the US with one parent a US citizen he is natural born.

The current constitutional issue is whether the child of an illegal alien gets to be US citizen. Go read the Coulter article for that one.

"look Mick, The founding Fathers lived in an era where they could not conceive that child born outside of the country to parents in service to the US Government would be anything but natural born. That takes care of McCain.

There are only two types of US citizens, natural born and naturalized. There is no third category. Did Bobby Jindel have to go through a naturalization procedure? If not he is natural born. In order to be natural born only one parent has to be a US citizen or resident alien not both. So if Obama was born in the US with one parent a US citizen he is natural born.

The current constitutional issue is whether the child of an illegal alien gets to be US citizen. Go read the Coulter article for that one."

And of course you're wrong. There are 3 "categories" of citizens mentioned in the USC. Citizen, born citizen and naturalized citizen (all 3 types were discussed in Perkins v. Elg). Natural Born is a CONDITION of birth, where no statute is required to make a child a US Citizen, i.e it is born in the US to 2 US Citizen parents. Only those US Citizens who are citizens by Natural Law (US Common Law) are Natural Born Citizens. There are some citizens made citizens at birth by statute, i.e Title 8 Section 1401, like Jindal. His birth to resident aliens made him a US Citizen by birth, but he still held Indian citizenship until the age of majority, when he was "naturalized by election" (place of domicile). Like Obama (at best) he was a dual citizen at birth, and therefore not eligible.

Of course you fail to give ANY proof of your assertions, just like "7". That is because there is no proof. There is NOTHING that says a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen, and a multitude of sources, which I have cited, that point to Vattel's Law of Nations, and Natural Law for the meaning of the term.

Any citizen from birth is a natural born citizen. Obama was a citizen from birth because his mother was a citizen and because he was born in the United States. Therefore, Obama is a natural born citizen. QED.

Check your premises, dude. One of them is wrong.

Furthermore, ass clown, the Equal Protection Clause was added after the Civil War. It's important. You should maybe look into it.

Do you propose to read the Constitution as written, so that slaves are 60 percent people, there is no freedom of speech, and all that? Good luck to you, loon.

Seven Machos said... "Any citizen from birth is a natural born citizen. Obama was a citizen from birth because his mother was a citizen and because he was born in the United States. Therefore, Obama is a natural born citizen. QED.

Check your premises, dude. One of them is wrong.

Furthermore, ass clown, the Equal Protection Clause was added after the Civil War. It's important. You should maybe look into it.

Do you propose to read the Constitution as written, so that slaves are 60 percent people, there is no freedom of speech, and all that? Good luck to you, loon."

SO PROVE it! You mean Obama is a natural born Citizen just because you say he is? WHERE does it say that a "citizen @ birth is a natural born Citizen? why didn't the framers just say "citizen @ birth, instead of natural born citizen? (that language, suggested by A. Hamilton was rejected in favor of natural born Citizen). NONE of my premise is wrong, and you certainly haven't proven it wrong. You reveal who you are by what you say. You talk about everything that doesn't matter, like the EP clause. There is no "right" to be POTUS. One must be eligible., and to be eligible, one must be 35 and a nbc. Are you really trying to say that the EP clause changed the original meaning of nbc? So then we must be discriminating against 34 year olds! That's a new one, and really tells me that you are lying, and desperate in your lie. So then I ask. Why would "7" lie? Probably because he is himself born of aliens, and feels "slighted" and/or "7" is part of the Obama Internet Brigade, that seeks to Obfuscate in favor of Obama.

What lawyer takes a pic on a website as absolute proof of anything? It is hearsay. And just like the OBOTS you try to shout down and ridicule (Alinsky) while asserting intellectual superiority (BS). If a citizen at birth is a nbc, then congress has the ability to change the meaning of nbc at will. They have tried and failed many times. Article 2 Section 1 can only be changed by Amendment.

This is not a "civil rights" issue. It is an issue of national security.

WHAT SCOTUS CASE or Statute says that a natural born Citizen is a Citizen @ birth? Still waiting....

“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that [every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of [ parentS ] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[6]“- Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment

Remember all the speculation about why Kerry wouldn't release his military records and the nut cases like you were all claiming thay he was "deserter" or had been dishonorably discharched? Eventually he released his records and it became readily apparent why he was so reticent. It had his SATs, academic record and military test scores all showing him to be inferior in intelligence to President Bush. It didn't fit in with his personal narrative so he tried to bury it. It's the same thing with Obama's actual birth certificate. Obama senior is listed as an Arab on his Kenyan (British Commonwealth) birth certificate. In 1961 Arab = Caucasian. (It still does under AA guidelines). Barak Obama's actual birth certificate undoubtedly lists him as Causcasian. When you are running for President as the first "African-American" it would be rather embarrassing to be listed as a white guy on your birth record.

Mick the Dunce: The US does not recognize dual citizenship. Jindel did not elect at 18 to become a citizen. He already was one. You don't check in the box at age 18 that you want to be a US citizen. It just happens at birth.

Question if you are still out here:

My mother was a Canadian citizen and my father was a natural born US citizen. Am I natural born or just born a citizen with the requirement to elect to be a US citizen at 18?